Deepfake Audio Detection: A Deep Learning Based Solution for Group Conversations
Abstract
The recent advancements in deep learning and other related technologies have led to improvements in various areas such as computer vision, bio-informatics, and speech recognition etc. This research mainly focuses on a problem with synthetic speech and speaker diarization. The developments in audio have resulted in deep learning models capable of replicating natural-sounding voice also known as text-to-speech (TTS) systems. This technology could be manipulated for malicious purposes such as deepfakes, impersonation, or spoofing attacks. We propose a system that has the capability of distinguishing between real and synthetic speech in group conversations.We built Deep Neural Network models and integrated them into a single solution using different datasets, including but not limited to Urban-Sound8K (5.6GB), Conversational (12.2GB), AMI-Corpus (5GB), and FakeOrReal (4GB). Our proposed approach consists of four main components. The speech-denoising component cleans and preprocesses the audio using Multilayer- Perceptron and Convolutional Neural Network architectures, with 93% and 94% accuracies accordingly. The speaker diarization was implemented using two different approaches, Natural Language Processing for text conversion with 93% accuracy and Recurrent Neural Network model for speaker labeling with 80% accuracy and 0.52 Diarization-Error-Rate. The final component distinguishes between real and fake audio using a CNN architecture with 94 % accuracy. With these findings, this…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Wijethunga et al. (2020)'s speech-denoising component cleans and preprocesses audio using Multilayer-Perceptron and CNN architectures with 93% and 94% accuracy, respectively.
“The speech-denoising element helps clean and preprocesses audio using the Multilayer-Perceptron and CNN architectures, respectively, with 93% and 94% accuracy.”
From Deepfake detection using deep learning methods: A systematic and comprehensive review (2024) · cites this paper as Wijethunga et al. (2020)
Wijethunga et al. (2020)'s final module uses a CNN architecture to discriminate between real and fraudulent audio with 94% accuracy.
“The final module takes a CNN architecture to discriminate between real and fraudulent audio with a 94% accuracy.”
From Deepfake detection using deep learning methods: A systematic and comprehensive review (2024) · cites this paper as Wijethunga et al. (2020)
Wijethunga et al. (2020) used NLP for text conversion with 93% accuracy and an RNN model for speaker tagging with 80% accuracy and 0.52 Diarization-Error Rate to accomplish speaker diarization.
“Natural Language Processing (NLP) for text conversion with 93% accuracy and the RNN model for speaker tagging with 80% accuracy and 0.52 Diarization-Error Rate was used to accomplish speaker diarization.”
From Deepfake detection using deep learning methods: A systematic and comprehensive review (2024) · cites this paper as Wijethunga et al. (2020)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deepfake detection using deep learning methods: A systematic and comprehensive review
Heidari, A., Jafari Navimipour, N., Dag, H., & Unal, M. (2024) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1520 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
“Finally, Wijethunga et al. (2020) proposed a method for training and validating models to get some of the greatest accuracy outcomes.”
MethodA Review of Modern Audio Deepfake Detection Methods: Challenges and Future Directions
Almutairi, Z., & Elgibreen, H. (2022) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a15050155 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Deepfake generation and detection: Case study and challenges
Patel, Y., Tanwar, S., Gupta, R., Bhattacharya, P., Davidson, I. E., Nyameko, R., Aluvala, S., & Vimal, V. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3342107 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Exploring autonomous methods for deepfake detection: A detailed survey on techniques and evaluation
Sunil, R., Mer, P., Diwan, A., Mahadeva, R., & Sharma, A. (2025) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42273 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Tan, C. B., Hijazi, M. H. A., Khamis, N., Nohuddin, P. N. E. B., Zainol, Z., Coenen, F., & Gani, A. (2021) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-021-11235-x · Cited by 40 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wijethunga, R. L. M. A. P. C., Matheesha, D. M. K., Noman, A. A., De Silva, K. H. V. T. A., Tissera, M., & Rupasinghe, L.
- Affiliations
- Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (LK)
- Venue
- 2020 2nd International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-12-10
- Pages
- 192-197
- OpenAlex
- W3135508679
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
- Keywords
- audio deepfake detection, synthetic speech detection, group conversation, speaker diarization, speech denoising
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review